State lawmakers attack climate change, evolution

Each year, many state legislatures consider bills that seek to undercut the …

The teaching of evolution has been under attack for decades, but few are aware of the extent of the campaign. Each year, at least a half-dozen states seem to introduce legislation intended to undermine science education standards by allowing or requiring nonscientific ideas to be taught alongside a standard biology curriculum. In recent years, these have taken the form of the so-called "academic freedom" bills, which allow teachers to bring in outside materials that undercut standard science textbooks. Many of these bills are now placing climate change beside evolution as a target for special criticism, and there are signs that climatology may become an independent target for state legislators.

We're only partway through February, and the National Center for Science Education has already been tracking two bills related to education in the biological sciences. The first, from Mississippi, would "require that the lesson have equal instruction from educational materials that present arguments from both protagonists and antagonists of the theory of evolution." It died in committee earlier this month.

But it was quickly joined by a bill in Kentucky that would allow teachers to bring in materials that were not approved by the state in order to critique the science that has previously been discussed; in this sense, it's structured much like the legislation that passed in Louisiana. The law targets scientific theories "including but not limited to the study of evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning," which is a direct copy of the Louisiana law.

There are two ways of interpreting this recent tendency to lump biology and geoscience education into a single piece of legislation. The first is that hyperskepticism of evolution and climate change have generally been associated with the conservative end of the political spectrum in recent years, meaning that the people behind the bills object to both topics. The alternative is that the people behind the bills know that there are many people who mistrust either one or the other, and the bill can attract wider support by including both.

But there are now signs that, at the state level, climate change may be ready to branch out on its own. Last week, the Utah House approved legislation that urges the Environmental Protection Agency to put any plans for regulating carbon dioxide emissions on hold, "until climate data and global warming science are substantiated."

Although the determination that the EPA would act on greenhouse gas emissions was based on scientific findings, the actual policy that results would be a political decision, and one that it's perfectly reasonable for the Utah legislature to weigh in on. Instead, the Utah legislation attacks the science, in inflammatory and confused terms.

The initial text of the legislation accused scientists of being on a "gravy train" of federal funding and engaging in a conspiracy to promote flawed findings. Those statements have been toned down in the version that passed, but it still contains many misunderstandings and distortions, including a positively bizarre aside that appears to blame chlorofluorocarbons—like freon—for the recent trajectory of temperatures.

Bills such as these highlight what appears to be a disturbing trend, one that is also apparent in a Maine legislator's recent attempts to place health warnings on cell phones. The US public has had difficulty distinguishing between credible scientific information and the various forms of misinformation available on the Internet. It's no surprise that state lawmakers, drawn from and representing that same population, have similar difficulties.

Being elected should, however, place a larger burden of responsibility on legislators, one that would seem to require at least a minimal attempt to work with the best available information. In fact, many scientific organizations, such as the National Academies of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have staff devoted to providing policymakers with answers to scientific questions. There's little excuse for legislators to be badly misinformed on these issues.

Unfortunately, it's very unlikely that a public that's equally confused on scientific matters will hold these elected officials responsible for not taking their job seriously. Which means that various pieces of climate-focused legislation may be appearing with the same regularity that evolution-focused bills now do.

Considering the lead scientist at East Anglia University's Climate Reasearch Unit said that the science on if the current trends are abnormal is not settled, and that while co2 levels keep rising, there has been no measureable global warming for 15 years, and that he doesn't really have much of the raw data to reverify much of the theories on global warming....

Originally posted by Tworak:you guys are dead set on going third world, huh? :P

i find the same people that support the religion of 8th century ideas like keeping women covered up and living in tribes in dirt huts and only reading one book on one religion in places like Afghanistan are the same people that want to bring down all the economies for another religion.

The mullahs of their religion are well known as well... Al Gore, and Phil Jones (up until a week ago), Michael Mann, and Dr Slumdog of the continuously more silly IPCC with the even more silly every day IPCC report.

All of the religious zealots are going to bring us back into the third world.. by hook or by crook.

Unfortunately, it's very unlikely that a public that's equally confused on scientific matters will hold these elected officials responsible for not taking their job seriously. Which means that various pieces of climate-focused legislation may be appearing with the same regularity that evolution-focused bills now do.

The problem, of course, is that in terms of what most people generally consider to be "science," the theories of evolution and climate change have assumed the level of religious dogma--wherein people with honest questions and healthy skepticism are branded with names such as "deniers." Any person wishing to open a debate on the issues is ostracized, marginalized, and often squelched. In some university settings, the trend has become so alarming that it is impossible to achieve tenure unless one professes "to believe" in either or both of these theories--now the Holy Grail of many universities. It's really very sad because true scientific discovery cherishes robust and healthy debate, and is not fearful of the facts, wherever they may come to rest. IMO, the elevation of theory to fact is never healthy, never scientific, and most likely rarely correct.

The initial text of the legislation accused scientists of being on a "gravy train" of federal funding and engaging in a conspiracy to promote flawed findings

So... it was yanked straight from some ignorant comment on Climate Audit or Watt's Up? That's just sad.

quote:

There's little excuse for legislators to be badly misinformed on these issues.

Could be that they're the ones riding the "gravy train" of lobbyist money from Exxon, likely laundered through "think tanks" like the Heartland Institute and George Marshall Institute. But politicians would never do that, and blame the bad behavior on scientists who are actually competing for federal funds

It's really very sad because true scientific discovery cherishes robust and healthy debate, and is not fearful of the facts, wherever they may come to rest. IMO, the elevation of theory to fact is never healthy, never scientific, and most likely rarely correct.

The problem with this type of legislation is not that it challenges the ideas of evolution and climate change, but rather a science class is being forced to teach non-science. Relativity has long been taught and yet had still been questioned such that we know it falls apart at speeds approaching the speed of light. But until we know for sure that it is totally false it still gets taught.Theories should be taught. Contradicting theories should be discussed in class. If the people who dispute evolution and climate change have valid scientific studies that disprove or cast doubt on current theories then that should be taught.Taking passages from the bible as proof against evolution is not science. And I know in my college undergrad geology course we talked about things like theories of global cooling from the 1970's and of the cyclical nature of temperature. There has been plenty of debate and the study of science demands we look at all possibilities that we find likely through science and math.

This is just stupid. People who have no understanding of subjects, working to ban them,.

That said, I don't believe we can put global warming in the same camp as evolution. There is absolutely no reasonable case to be made for doubting the science of evolution. Anyone who claims there is clearly doesn't understand evolution. The same cannot be said for global warming.

I have no problem with a school curriculum addressing both sides of the climate debate.

There are no "both sides" of the evolution "debate".

And what the hell is with letting teachers bring in outside material to "undercut" the formal textbooks? Are there any standards on what this material is? Can I use the Silmarillion to teach that the Valar, Noldor and Teleri are the mystical ancestors of the Welsh?

Bloom's Taxonomy rates learning in the following order knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, evaluation and synthesis. You have to know the facts before you can understand. You have to understand before you can apply your knowledge. Evaluation is way up there and requires a great deal of learning before students can properly evaluate evidence and make judgements. I am all for throwing students real world issues once they've mastered the necessary skills and knowledge to evaluate them correctly, but this sort of legislation doesn't appear to encourage that.

If the legislators really want students evaluating something as complex as Climate Change and counter theories then they should spell out what knowledge and skills are required before they can tackle the problem or at least mandate that science teachers come up with the criteria. The legislation seems more like indoctrination rather than an attempt to encourage students to attain and use scientific knowledge and skills.

If the science is settled, you have no room to fear from debate. Obviously the truth will shine forth. I'm not afraid of the truth. Are you? (And don't tell me the kids are too dumb to understand the difference. That's just rude and arrogant. Teenagers are as smart as you allow them to be.)

Oh and just to be snarky:

We keep hearing evolution and AGW as equally settled. But clearly that's not so. Let's just consider that the AGW proponents have told us repeatedly that the last 20 years of warming are abnormal; until they changed their minds this weekend. Now the last 20 years are not statistically different. We've been told that the science is settled, except when they change their minds.

Why shouldn't I want a healthy debate? Why would I be afraid of the truth? Apparently AGW can't hold up to scientific scrutiny (as the leaders are backtracking rapidly now).

Originally posted by mtgarden:Why shouldn't I want a healthy debate? Why would I be afraid of the truth? Apparently AGW can't hold up to scientific scrutiny (as the leaders are backtracking rapidly now).

Because, mtgarden, you must be a religious fundamentalist zealot if you don't blindly accept what I call science, or something along the lines of some other false dichotomy.

@gsfprez : one professor saying something doesn't make is necessarily true. Besides that you might want to read up on global dimming.

And yes, going after the children to teach them lies (creationism, anti-evolution, 'there is no global warming') is very alarming indeed.Richard Dawkins compares this to a virus, once infected with the lies, it is not easy to be open-minded to, in this case, reality. Especially when the children are only surrounded by people with the same ridiculous beliefs and grow up in an environment where scientific fact is frowned upon and actual scientific data is being withheld. Not to mention ignorant politicians who, as somebody mentioned in the comments above, should read a couple of books (start with Dawkins' new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, that explains a couple of things!) instead of a single book (the story of the fictitious protagonist called god, ie. the bible of course)

People who do realize that evolution and global warming are facts, read up on the subject and memorize some arguments against the commonest stupid questions (eg, if we are descendent from monkeys why are there still monkeys? or then why is it called the 'theroy' of evolution and not the fact of evolution...).

Originally posted by elfguy516:If the people who dispute evolution and climate change have valid scientific studies that disprove or cast doubt on current theories then that should be taught.Taking passages from the bible as proof against evolution is not science.

I completely agree. Simply stating things like "we have not proven that yet, so in place we'll use the basis of our religion" especially when there is a generally accepted body of science supporting the former, and no scientific proof of the latter, is simply wrong, contrary to the basic priciples of science, and a detriment to education.

Science is for science class, biblical evolution contradictions are for Philosophy and religion classes. Religion is not, and should never be considered as a contrast to science.

Counters to the completely accepted facts and theories of global warming should be limited to the factors influencing it, not the fact it isn't real. We proved it's real. Varios published and accepted research projects have tried to qualtify what factors effect it the most, and whether or not MAN has or could change the future, and various studies contradict the outsome. Study of Global Warming is an advanced study of mathematic models and simulations, which disagree wildly, just as much as we use a dozen or more math models to predict the path and strength of a hurricane. Each one is wrong, but taken together, they all point to a fairly reasonable and predictable RANGE of outcomes, and ALL of those outcomes are bad for man if we don;t solve the model more completely, and very soon spend lots of money and effort to either reverse the trend, or build a whole lot of big walls around cities (or move the cities). The debate is not are we warming, the debate is how fast, what are the sources, and what can we do about it?

Further, the only sciences "brought in from the outside" that should be presented in a classroom by a teacher are reports and experiments from large scale studies and properly funded independent research, collaborated and repeated by at least one additional scientific outfit. Never should the scientific results of a single firm be discussed until international science bodies have reviewed, commented on, and repeated the experiments CONFIRMING the results. until such is done, it's not even a record of data, its a hypothesis supported only by potentially flawed methods.

Additionally, any contradictory theory" presented, or science in general, where a set of data is collected, but a hypothesis is made based on a SUBSET of the data (because the whole set does not lead to the same conclusion) is not science. Any published science should include the ENTIRE data set, above and beyond the data the results are based on, and explicit reasoning why any of the data may or may not have been included.

I completely support the idea of teaching counter teachings, and alternate views. In fact, I fully support not only the inclusion of Bible based teachings in schools, but ALSO not less than equal time spent on at least 3 additional popular world religions, (Preferably Hindi, Islam, and bhuddhism) also presented to the class in a positive or educational light (in other words, present the material in such a was as to not negatively compare it to any other religion). Additional time should also be spent on the lesser world religions. Further, this should not compare only the current state, but the entire known history of the religion, good and bad times, religious wars, etc, and the evolution of the teachings over time.

« including a positively bizarre aside that appears to blame chlorofluorocarbons—like freon—for the recent trajectory of temperatures»

The Kyoto protocol seeks to control CFC's precisely because these gases are have a high warming potential. After all the radical warmist handwringing and chicken littleness here at Ars, what's genuinely bizarre is the quoted sentence above.

Originally posted by eddib:@gsfprez : one professor saying something doesn't make is necessarily true.

You seem to be under the impression that only a handful of scientists or professors are saying "something" against AGW. In this particular case, the professor that said "something" was highly influential.

I say we draw up a list of the scientific minds that are pro-AGW and scientific minds that are anti-AGW. Let's get this misconception fixed once and for all.

Someone should start a thread on Ars and people can start submitting the names and credentials of pro-AGW scientists and anti-AGW scientists.

Originally posted by MoonShark:Could be that they're the ones riding the "gravy train" of lobbyist money from Exxon, likely laundered through "think tanks" like the Heartland Institute and George Marshall Institute.

Please do not show your ignorance so openly.

"The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change." "Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon‐Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five‐thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008."http://www.heartland.org/custo...icybot/pdf/25717.pdf

If you are going to sell your advocacy, be smart and sell it to the US government... they are the ones giving away billions to the warmist gravy train. The few millions available from the energy industry are chickenshit by comparison.

Really. Then why do some people get so defensive about these theories? Some people object to even calling these theories "theories."

People get defensive about lots of things, especially when they’re frequently pelted with ridiculous arguments against them. One’s skin can only be so thick, after all. As for refusing to refer to evolutionary theory as such, do you mean the separation of the fact of evolution from the theory of evolution? If not, then do you mean the ridiculing of evolutionary because it is a mere theory?

I think the people who are really wearing the tinfoil hats are the ones who don't want us building any nuclear power plants. Talk about backward and anti-science! We could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and put less CO2 in to the air.

including a positively bizarre aside that appears to blame chlorofluorocarbons—like freon—for the recent trajectory of temperatures

While the asside may not have been appropriate, I can understand why a politician might believe this. I attended school in the 80's and 90's and I remember being bombarded fairly regularly with claims that CFC's were destroying the Ozone layer. We were told that the hole over the arctic was due to CFC's (despite us never having observed its absence IIRC), that this was leading to the melting of the polar ice caps, and in conjunction with the decreased light reflection was going to cause global warming and increased sea levels.

Whether this is still the theory, and accounted for in global warming models is outside my ability to determine. However, it illustrates the point that we need to be careful what claims we make on incomplete data because those claims may come back to bite us in the ass later.

quote:

When the science is clear, why are you a skeptic? When you continue to question while the facts are clearly against you, what does that make you?

As a scientist I'm always skeptical, even of my own data. When presenting your data and explanation the burden of proof is on you, and not everyone is going to require the same amount of convincing. I don't doubt the global warming data, although I'm still skeptical of the explanations attached to the data. I'm not some religious ideologue. I can be convinced, but have not in part because any time I ask an honest question I get a bunch of trolls telling me I'm unqualified to even ask the question and branding me as a "Denier" when I haven't denied anything, only expressed my own lack of conviction.

My skepticism with regards to the anthropogenic explanation for the global temperature data probably arises from the inability to run planned experiments in this field. All of the GW data is based on observation and post-hoc analysis. AFAIK, there are no controlled experiments, which makes me uncomfortable and in need of much more convincing. I work in a field where i can and routinely do develop pre-planned experiments where I have control over a lot of the contributing factors, and I still see erroneous results, or explanations that are initially promising but ultimately fall appart with more investigation.

On the Evolution front, I am convinced. I cannot see how anyone doubts that evolution occurs, we've seen it occur numerous times. However, I can see how someone would be skeptical of evolutionary speciation as we have not actually observed the process from start to finish (AFAIK). However my ability to empathize does not mean I agree. The evidence supporting evolutionary speciation is more than adequate to convince me.

So what does that make me? Am I a religious troglodite faking acceptance of evolution to appear reasonable in my lack of conviction on the anthropogenic explanation for global warming? Am I just a moron with a PhD that some how got through my graduate studies despite my idiocy? Or is it possible to be skeptical of someones explanation for their results without actually doubting the data, having a political ax to grind, or being a "Denier"?

P.S. The "Denier" label have always struck me as being used as synonyms for "Blasphemer" in forum discussions of global warming or evolution.